Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!umcp-cs!prometheus!pmk From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M Koloc) Newsgroups: net.religion.christian,talk.religion.misc Subject: Re: Holy Spirit, Trinity, angels and cosmology: ANSWER PART 2 Message-ID: <266@prometheus.UUCP> Date: Sun, 28-Sep-86 03:22:06 EDT Article-I.D.: promethe.266 Posted: Sun Sep 28 03:22:06 1986 Date-Received: Tue, 30-Sep-86 00:40:36 EDT References: <7568@tekecs.UUCP> <1503@mtx5a.UUCP> <7616@tekecs.UUCP> <261@prometheus.UUCP> <1286@utastro.UUCP> Reply-To: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M Koloc) Distribution: net Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd., College Park, MD 20740-0222 Lines: 112 Keywords: Trinity, Father, Jesus, Holy Spirit, Substance Xref: linus net.religion.christian:4772 talk.religion.misc:299 In article <1286@utastro.UUCP> padraig@utastro.UUCP (Padraig Houlahan) writes: >>In article <1272@utastro.UUCP> padraig@utastro.UUCP (Padraig Houlahan) writes: >> >The criticism is still valid since the sciences physics and cosmology - >> >in spite of your contrived hypotheses - do not recognize the existence of >> >angels and souls, leaving this as an appropriate forum. >> > >> >In article <261@prometheus.UUCP>, pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M Koloc) writes: >> Let's look at the "physical problem" and assume that the one >> space of "Divine substance" (no volume) is embedded in our grainy >> three space physical world. > Your point of view assumes that one dimensional space is a line in three space, and that an infinite number of these lines can be produced (see > paragraphs below). What I wanted to point out here is that even IF we consider that one space becomes embedded in three space after the "big bang creation" of three space then we must look at the "physical" interactions. Since the infinitesimal one space "slips between the grains of 3 space", there can be no interaction, no measure, and therefore, One Space can NOT be embedded in three space. For a space to be embedded, it must be contiguous. >> If this substance did exist there at all, it must exist there at >> all times because of its nature. If it never existed there then >> it never existed and doesn't exist now, and there was no juice to >> generate the substance of two and then three dimensional space, >> and we don't exist. Compared to the density of one space, we're >> just a fleeting grainy few frames on a television boob tube, anyway. >More assertions: > - "juice " I think it was quite clear from the start that this cosmology was first conceived to explain the "source of the 'juice' that fueled the big bang creation of our physical three dimensional universe". Generalizing that concept doesn't really "add" assertions. > - three space came from two, and two from one... Yes, and it's logically consistent and easily generalized. > - infinite density of one space (implied) This is indeed postulated. > >> > But since a line can be partitioned ad infinitum, your "logic" now >> > allows for an infinite number of "entities". >> >> Yes, a "line" can, in two and three space, but that is not the case in >> one space. >NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Now you have one, right! Congratulations! >Any 1 dimensional space can be partitioned into sub spaces. That's not true. A purely 1 dimensional space not embedded in higher spaces can NOT be subdivided or partitioned. Lines existing in two or higher spaces can be partitioned, simply because other lines can intersect them, which are also embedded in the same higher space. There doesn't exist a partitioning "element" (an intersecting line) in a purely NON-embedded one dimensional space. >> > - Even if you don't like the previous objection you are not off the >> > hook. There are an infinite number of n-spaces that can fit into >> > an m-space if m > n (ignoring partions for the present). This still >> > permits an infinite number of your infinite density entities to >> > exist. >More assertions? > -Finiteness of the "REAL physical world"'s information > -Three dimensional space is subset of a one dimensional space Well, if the first is true the second is feasible. Every astrological student such as yourself, Padraig, knows that the universe has a limited amount of mass and and a limited size. Now that can imply a finite number of particles, positions, etc and ... . . Voila! information. Isn't that possibly true. >I'm not going to spend any more time on this. You are not just covering >assertions with assertions but are also attempting "proof by repeated >assertion". Mssr. Padraig Houlahan. I don't think you are giving your brain and soul a fair shake here. Generalize the assertions! Please, do it! Stretch that brain muscle. This is in the "conceptual" stage, and as far as "proof" goes, I'm to battered to believe that such things have much value except on a very personal level. Then remember this is NOT DOGMA, it's not a THEORY, it is a hypothesis. For the time being, only one leg of it is open to scientific investigation. That will change, in a century or two. And before that you'll be able to personally investigate another leg, yourself, first hand. I hope Good bye and best regards, Paul +---------------------------------------------------------+--------+ | Paul M. Koloc, President: (301) 445-1075 | FUSION | | Prometheus II, Ltd.; College Park, MD 20740-0222 | this | | {umcp-cs | seismo}!prometheus!pmk; pmk@prometheus.UUCP | decade | +---------------------------------------------------------+--------+